IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Right. SO why is it nonsense? Evidence. Specifics please. You have made the claim sop the onus is on you : just demonstrate why it is nonsense? Where are the flaws in the methodology? Where are the issues with the results? Come on, do some work. I have to, I don;t see why critics should be immune from defending their positions.

cj x

__________________I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell

So you offer a paper describing research which is admitted to be poorly done, and done from the standpoint that they were analyzing sounds of things they already considered to be poltergeist events. And that is your alleged best evidence that poltergeists exist. It seems you're having as much trouble with the idea of objectivity as Andyman409 has.

For anyone who doesn't care to wade through the BS that cj.23 linked, it contains such gems as analyzing sounds that were from unknown sources, "inexplicable" they called them, and comparing them to sounds they made by tapping a hammer on an oak desk. Wow, the sounds were analytically different! I'm not sure who is the greater bunch of rubes, the people involved in putting together that particular piece of nonsense, or the people who believe it is valid evidence.

So you offer a paper describing research which is admitted to be poorly done, and done from the standpoint that they were analyzing sounds of things they already considered to be poltergeist events. And that is your alleged best evidence that poltergeists exist. It seems you're having as much trouble with the idea of objectivity as Andyman409 has.

For anyone who doesn't care to wade through the BS that cj.23 linked, it contains such gems as analyzing sounds that were from unknown sources, "inexplicable" they called them, and comparing them to sounds they made by tapping a hammer on an oak desk. Wow, the sounds were analytically different! I'm not sure who is the greater bunch of rubes, the people involved in putting together that particular piece of nonsense, or the people who believe it is valid evidence.

GeeMack, can you actually offer meaningful critiques of the paper? You know methodological ones? Factual ones? Yes the acoustic waveforms are what the paper is about. They are not really from unknown sources, they are purported poltergeist raps. Or is this really the best the JREF has to offer these days in terms of sceptical appraisal? I did wonder what FLS meant when she mentioned her reasons for leaving on another forum, now I'm starting to get it. All we need is an actual critical analysis of the quality that could be published as a rebuttal to say the New Scientist piece on this research. So come on, give me facts and evidence dammnit, not just slackjawed sneering.

cj x

__________________I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell

So any paper on evidence for poltergeists is nonsense: and poltergeists are nonsense because there is no evidence for them? Are you really saying this?!!! I think I must have lost the plot somehow.

Look just show me why the paper is flawed. "It mentions poltergeists" is hardly a valid critique. What is wrong with the methodology? the science? the reasoning? the experiments? How would you set about falsifying it? You demanded evidence: no some has been put forward I think you owe it to yourself to actually address it with a meaningful critique. Or do you want me to do it for you???

cj x

__________________I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell

So any paper on evidence for poltergeists is nonsense: and poltergeists are nonsense because there is no evidence for them? Are you really saying this?!!! I think I must have lost the plot somehow.
cj x

GeeMack, can you actually offer meaningful critiques of the paper? You know methodological ones? Factual ones?

Yes. They started with recorded sounds, the origins of which were unknown, and which they already believed were caused by poltergeists. They made some of their own sounds. They concluded that those sounds were analytically different from the ones with unknown origins. Big firkin deal. I'm baffled that any intelligent person would even ask for a meaningful critique. There is no way to objectively conclude that the differences are even meaningful, much less that they might somehow support the claim that poltergeists exist. The entire thing is a piece of toilet paper designed to support a pre-existing belief. There is nothing scientific about it in any way whatsoever.

So any paper on evidence for poltergeists is nonsense: and poltergeists are nonsense because there is no evidence for them? Are you really saying this?!!! I think I must have lost the plot somehow.

If you think that is what is being said, yes I can confirm you have lost the plot.
It isn't the mention of poltergeists that is the problem, it is assuming they exist and basing a test upon that assumption in order to show that they exist that is the problem.
This is not evidence for poltergeists, it is the assumption that poltergeists make some noises before showing that poltergeists exist.
In reality, no one is any closer to discovering the cause of the noises poltergeist or not.

Originally Posted by cj.23

Look just show me why the paper is flawed. "It mentions poltergeists" is hardly a valid critique. What is wrong with the methodology? the science? the reasoning? the experiments?

You demanded evidence: no some has been put forward I think you owe it to yourself to actually address it with a meaningful critique.

There really is no need for such in depth rebuttal of a poorly designed experiment.

Originally Posted by cj.23

Or do you want me to do it for you???

Yes, I'd like to hear your critical viewpoint of at least some if this guff, if you don't mind, if you think it's worth bothering with.
It would certainly be interesting to see at least some critical thinking from you.

__________________It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

Yes. They started with recorded sounds, the origins of which were unknown, and which they already believed were caused by poltergeists. They made some of their own sounds. They concluded that those sounds were analytically different from the ones with unknown origins. Big firkin deal. I'm baffled that any intelligent person would even ask for a meaningful critique. There is no way to objectively conclude that the differences are even meaningful, much less that they might somehow support the claim that poltergeists exist. The entire thing is a piece of toilet paper designed to support a pre-existing belief. There is nothing scientific about it in any way whatsoever.

Nope, its a careful assessment of a hypothesis based upon evidence. And I believe it is flawed. However having demonstrated that my some of my "so- called sceptic" detractors are unable to critically evaluate a paper, I modestly offer my own critique of said paper, the only one to date as far as I am aware --

This my fine fellows is how one critiques a paper scientifically. Now please, shut up or put up. If you want to make empty sounds but can;t be bothered to engage with the actual evidence that is your prerogative - but please, don't bleat on about how those of us who actually do perform research and have critical faculties and informed opinions go about things.

You may think I am a woo. Fair enough. I'm informed, intelligent and critical. And you know what? You could have googled and found my critique if you had bothered to look.

Yes, as I said, I have a VERY black sense of humour, and while I feel a little mean, I hope some people enjoy my little joke.

cj x

__________________I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell

Nope, its a careful assessment of a hypothesis based upon evidence. And I believe it is flawed. However having demonstrated that my some of my "so- called sceptic" detractors are unable to critically evaluate a paper, I modestly offer my own critique of said paper, the only one to date as far as I am aware -- [...]

The paper has been critically evaluated by at least a couple of us. For you to claim it has not is a lie.

The paper has been critically evaluated by at least a couple of us. For you to claim it has not is a lie.

I don't think it's a lie- I just think he has a slightly different definition for the word critical. I think he expected more of a demolition of the paper than you gave. One need not critique every aspect of a paper to show it's conclusion is wrong.

Originally Posted by Lusikka

I agree. I have both books on my shelf. But unfortunately it is useless to speak about books on a skeptical forum. The books are not peer reviewed and don't "prove" anything. It is too much work to waste your time in reading a silly book. Naturally this does not concern skeptical books, they are very useful and give good background against woo.

They forget the fact that it is needed a whole book to give a rather detailed big picture of something.

Well, the two books seem like a great springboard for a future a conversation...

Originally Posted by Sledge

Andyman409, has it occurred to you that you're in the wrong place? You keep asking for the best evidence on various supernatural topics. The vast majority of people here to not believe these things (ghosts, life after death, etc) exist, so don't have a "best" piece of evidence to offer. If you're really interested in the subjects, why not go to forums where people who do believe this junk hang out and ask them what the best evidence is? I'm sure we'd all be happy to discuss the results with you.

yes, I am more than aware that I could visit a believers forum instead of a skeptics forum. But why would I do that? I wanted a critical appraisal of the evidence, remember? Plus, it is relatively easy to find books and articles in support of said phenomena. Google "poltergeist", and you'll find far more resources pro than con. The hard part is finding skeptical responses to said phenomena.

I don't think it's a lie- I just think he has a slightly different definition for the word critical. I think he expected more of a demolition of the paper than you gave. One need not critique every aspect of a paper to show it's conclusion is wrong.

One only needs to show that the scientific method has been abandoned by the authors to demolish the validity of the paper. That was done. Maybe cj.23 thinks providing a perfectly complete and objective reason to dismiss the entire paper isn't criticism, but that would show a complete abysmal misunderstanding of what constitutes a legitimately scientific analysis. The paper was shown to be crap.

Quote:

yes, I am more than aware that I could visit a believers forum instead of a skeptics forum. But why would I do that? I wanted a critical appraisal of the evidence, remember?

And every time someone points out to you that there is no evidence, you blatantly ignore their comments and continue to bring in new anecdotes or silly hypothetical questions. Remember?

Quote:

Plus, it is relatively easy to find books and articles in support of said phenomena. Google "poltergeist", and you'll find far more resources pro than con. The hard part is finding skeptical responses to said phenomena.

The skeptical responses amount to one liners like: "There is no objective evidence to support the claim that poltergeists exist," and, "Anecdotes are claims, not evidence." The skeptical responses to idiocy only require a sentence or two. They're not hard to find. They've been provided dozens of times right here in these threads. Clearly they are easy to ignore, however, especially when you're a believer and/or when you want a whole book of debunking when a sentence or two is really all that is necessary.

One only needs to show that the scientific method has been abandoned by the authors to demolish the validity of the paper. That was done. Maybe cj.23 thinks providing a perfectly complete and objective reason to dismiss the entire paper isn't criticism, but that would show a complete abysmal misunderstanding of what constitutes a legitimately scientific analysis. The paper was shown to be crap.

And every time someone points out to you that there is no evidence, you blatantly ignore their comments and continue to bring in new anecdotes or silly hypothetical questions. Remember?

The skeptical responses amount to one liners like: "There is no objective evidence to support the claim that poltergeists exist," and, "Anecdotes are claims, not evidence." The skeptical responses to idiocy only require a sentence or two. They're not hard to find. They've been provided dozens of times right here in these threads. Clearly they are easy to ignore, however, especially when you're a believer and/or when you want a whole book of debunking when a sentence or two is really all that is necessary.

I know you hate anecdotes, but it seems like, according to CJ, 1 in every 100 people experience collective apparitions- experiences where multiple people claim to see the same entity. That's a rather shocking number.

I suppose for that line of evidence to go any further, you'd have to calculate how many collective apparitions would be expected by chance alone. Would it be 1 in 100? You can deny it if you wish, but I cant help but think this stat deserves a response.

I know you hate anecdotes, but it seems like, according to CJ, 1 in every 100 people experience collective apparitions- experiences where multiple people claim to see the same entity. That's a rather shocking number.

Your incredulity or bafflement does not constitute evidence for anything other than that you are credulous and easily baffled.

Quote:

I suppose for that line of evidence to go any further, you'd have to calculate how many collective apparitions would be expected by chance alone. Would it be 1 in 100? You can deny it if you wish, but I cant help but think this stat deserves a response.

No. None of it is evidence for poltergeists. None of it. It's all anecdotes. No amount of anecdotes added together will ever become evidence. For some bizarre reason, likely because you really, really want poltergeists to be real, you are stubbornly refusing to understand the concept of objective evidence. That's how the faithful want it to be, but that's not how reality works. Sorry.

I'll give you the stat to start with, again, although you're likely to close your eyes and stuff your fingers in your ears, again, because you hate it when skeptics try to help you learn critical thinking. But here goes: Of all the phenomena that have ever allegedly been caused by poltergeists, the actual cause of which was eventually identified as a particular thing, how many of those were objectively determined to be caused by poltergeists? The answer is a number, not some waffling excuse making, not some weaseling, not a silly statistic about how many tales have been told. The answer will be a number. Here's a hint, it's a very, very low number. See if you can work up the courage and honesty to answer that one.

I know you hate anecdotes, but it seems like, according to CJ, 1 in every 100 people experience collective apparitions- experiences where multiple people claim to see the same entity. That's a rather shocking number.

Yes it is indeed surprisingly low, given how easily human perceptions can be fooled by the unfamiliar. Perhaps people are more aware of the fallability of their senses than they are usually given credit for, and consequently dismiss such experiences as not worthy of note.

__________________"The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.

1. Poltergeist phenomena have been reported across different cultures and centuries with a strong degree of internal consistency (evidence: Gauld & Cornell 1979 survey of 500 cases)

Selection bias, confirmation bias, Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Quote:

2, Poltergeist phenomena are not currently adequately explained by any known hypothesis. (evidence: no one has a solution that explains all the facts)

Begging the question.

Quote:

3. The solution may well be mundane (tricky children, hallucination, etc) or involve as yet not understood physics or science. My contention is the phenomena are naturalistic, and therefore subject to scientific scrutiny. (evidence:one can study them and develop hypotheses, and find consistencies in the reports. Roll's Can We Explain the Poltergeist? gives one example)

Begging the question.

Quote:

4. Individual cases and the collective dataset resist explanation by any given hypothesis we currently have (evidence: the dataset in Chapter 8 of Gaul & Cornell)

Begging the question.

__________________Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

Pixy: Hullo doctor I'm ill.
GP: What appears to be the problem.
Pixy. Just treat me.
Doctor: Yes, but what is wrong?
Pixy. Don't try that crap on me. I know anecdotes are not evidence! Just treat me.
cj x

__________________I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell

Still you might wish to turn your attention to my analysis of the Houran and Lange paper cited by Wiseman in a Skeptical Inquirer article, and the fact I can not find anything in it or any other paper by them that correlates with what he says in the article. I'm genuinely puzzled. So how about trying to help me understand this?

cj x

__________________I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell

Still you might wish to turn your attention to my analysis of the Houran and Lange paper cited by Wiseman in a Skeptical Inquirer article, and the fact I can not find anything in it or any other paper by them that correlates with what he says in the article. I'm genuinely puzzled. So how about trying to help me understand this?

Wouldn't Richard Wiseman be the person to ask?

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

Pixy: Hullo doctor I'm ill.
GP: What appears to be the problem.
Pixy. Just treat me.
Doctor: Yes, but what is wrong?
Pixy. Don't try that crap on me. I know anecdotes are not evidence! Just treat me.
cj x

Pixy: Hullo doctor I'm ill.
GP: What appears to be the problem.
Pixy. Just treat me.
Doctor: Yes, but what is wrong?
Pixy. Don't try that crap on me. I know anecdotes are not evidence! Just treat me.
cj x

Both your condescending attempt at special pleading and your failure to get away with that kind of dishonesty are noted.

Testimony may or may not be reliable. Anecdotes, which are second hand short accounts, may be so, but are even less liable to be relaible. Of course the term has a different meaning in law to popular science writing, but it is widely overused to the extent where it is leargely meaningless as a criticism. Pixy's self report on how Pixy is is clearly NOT anecdotal. If the issue was depression, or anxiety, rather than a sore throat, a diagnosis would be impossible without what she dismisses as anecdote.

Self report has issues sure. Everyone acknowledges that. However in much science it is exactly what we have to go upon. Even when it comes to papers by esteemed and well respected sceptics, we have to assume their papers accurately reflect their understanding of their results. All analysis is testimony: though I do encourage everyone to publish their raw data and methodology to allow independent checking or results.

- much of which is, I am sad to report, by the standards of parapsychology methodologically shoddy and utterly riddled with questionable assumptions. Shame sceptics don't spend more time scrutinising papers in all fields, but good for parapsych that we get so much attention and love lavished on our methodology from sceptics. I like to return the favour when I can

cj x

__________________I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell

Both your condescending attempt at special pleading and your failure to get away with that kind of dishonesty are noted.

GeeMack, how delightful to see you here. I see you did not learn from your experience yesterday. I am condescending when faced with pseudo-scepticism yes. Have you ever considered going to do a course in Philosophy of Science? You might actually enjoy it, and learn something. If you are an a priori sceptic as you appear to be, fair enough. I'm a methodological sceptic. However I don't have time to engage today really - I'm still working on the Skeptical Inquirer paper and the literature behind it. I'm sure we can enjoy a nice chat this evening though?

cj x

__________________I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell

GeeMack, how delightful to see you here. I see you did not learn from your experience yesterday. I am condescending when faced with pseudo-scepticism yes. Have you ever considered going to do a course in Philosophy of Science?
cj x

I guess you're going to continue this tack; unfortunate because my initial encounters with you were similar to Garrette's experience, but now I'm definitely changing my mind.

Anecdotes are claims and acceptance is based on trustworthiness of claim.

I saw a cat: fine.

I saw a ghost: not fine.

I have myriad examples of cats; I have zero examples of ghosts.

Ghost stories are not ghosts.

And cat stories are not cats? Magritte would be proud of us. So you wish to apply a Bayesian prior probability to the claim? This is a sophisticated form of a priori scepticism. It's a philosophical stance I can understand, but it is completely alien to the methodological scepticism I employ.

cj x

__________________I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell

I guess you're going to continue this tack; unfortunate because my initial encounters with you were similar to Garrette's experience, but now I'm definitely changing my mind.

Have a good conversation.

Yes I am irritating, and often rude. GeeMack also thinks i'm a liar, though I would disagree there. I'm just dogged in pursuit of facts, and my time spent on philosophy of science has made me very very difficult i expect, because I like to question assumptions. I'm sorry if I have upset you though Resume, and I assure you it is nothing personal.

cj x

__________________I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell

And cat stories are not cats? Magritte would be proud of us. So you wish to apply a Bayesian prior probability to the claim? This is a sophisticated form of a priori scepticism. It's a philosophical stance I can understand, but it is completely alien to the methodological scepticism I employ.

cj x

You really are talking a phenomenal amount of bollocks. Instead of wittering away with references to other people, why don't you explain why first hand accounts aren't anecdotal?

__________________"The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline

Actually Sledge, I think you are genuinely confused. OK, I'll respond in detail.

You claim that first hand accounts, testimony, are not valid as evidence?
I assume you feel you are consistent in this? You certainly are more consistent than most, I grant you that, In the "can you help me understand what I saw" odd aircraft thread, you commented that without seeing it or having anything to go no it was not possible as I recall. Fair enough.

However, I'm going to assume you accept many first hand reports every day, to cope with life. So what I suspect you do is apply a Bayesian Prior Probability - you think loch monsters are extremely unlikely, so you therefore refuse to accept testimony of loch monsters? I assume you would have less reason to question the fact I am currently drinking coffee.

As such this is a form of a priori scepticism. You do not seek to understand and explain anomalies, you ignore them as having mundane but unexplained causes, based on your underlying philosophical axioms.

Is that roughly correct?
cj x

__________________I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell

It's a philosophical stance I can understand, but it is completely alien to the methodological scepticism I employ.

Yup, your way is just a longer winded way to reaching basically the same conclusion as we do apparently.
There comes a point when indulging silly claims by examining every detail becomes not only tedious but it also manages to give more gravitas to the subject you're pulling apart because you appear to be having to look in depth into it, to uncover faults, when those faults are usually at the forefront of the body of work you're examining.

Now I too have in the past (and most likely probably will do again in the future) put a lot of work into exposing frauds and inaccuracies in the fields I've studied by methodically pulling apart data piece by piece, doing investigations at ground level and spoken with eye witnesses. It can be very absorbing, entertaining and educational, but is it actually necessary to do that to show a claim to be bunk? I don't think so.

Having gone through that process many times, it does become much easier to recognise the same patterns when people in other fields are using the same faulty reasoning and skirting around the houses instead of facing up to the complete lack of evidence for that which they are claiming... To the point where we can now define a Poltergeist as; any statistical anomaly within a large enough dataset.

And even though that doesn't explain how a bunch of numbers can throw plates across a room.

__________________It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!